|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
 Posted - 09/18/2002 : 11:36:41
|
Renaming the inneffectual League of Nations didn't make it anymore useful.
Like him or not, Bush was dead on right about the UN being "irrelevant". Hell the jaywalking law has been better enforced than any UN resolution.
It presumes to be the ruling body on earth, yet it has no real power beyond the veto members. Even then, as we did in Bosnia, we simply fell back on NATO when the UN didn't sing our tune.
All the anti-US/NWO bleating from the people dragging thier feet to dusting Saddam fails to realise that the US is enforcing UN sanctions and resolutions. In fact, we're the only ones doing it. Everyone else talked tough but packed up and left entirely, whether Saddam complied or not.
So the ONLY authority the UN wields over Iraq is the US military. If the US pulled out, there would be NO enforcement the high and mighty UN resolutions.
The credibility of the UN is an eggshell, and even that fragile facade is provided by the US. Essentially, we use the UN to get global legitimacy for our actions. Nothing more. It's a meetinghouse where countries say 'Mother may I'.
Given hesitation on the UN's part, no country has refrained from taking whatever action it was already sold on.
Like the League of Nations, it has utterly and dismally failed to restrict arms build-ups/races and proliferation of WMD. Regional conflicts have boiled into mass genocide while the UN can only look meekly on, having been soundly thrashed in Somalia- Requiring the US to send in troops to bail out the UN again.
The UN was formed with the best of intentions. So was the inquisition. Neither accomplished thier stated goals.
Let's end the charade. The UN is only embarrassing itself now.
"We didn't enforce the last resolution, but here's another. If you don't listen to me, my big brother is gonna beat you up."
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through.
|
|
|
Kaneda Kuonji
Skeptic Friend
USA
138 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 17:58:26 [Permalink]
|
You have a very good point.
The UN seems to have this idea to talk big and hide behind the US when the other side doesn't want to listen. What happens? The UN is no longer taken seriously. Which is exactly the same for all threats without actions.
Rodney Dean, CI Order of the Knights of Jubal
Ivbalis.org
|
 |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 18:54:36 [Permalink]
|
I have to agree; but this is itself an excellent rebuttal for all the paranoiacs out there who are afraid (or at least pushing that fear onto others for profit! -->Kent Hovind, Tim LaHaye, etc). that the UN is trying to take over the world; specifically the fear that it's after the rights of "americans" (ie. the fear that the UN has soldiers stationed in the US waiting to take over!)
We've identified (well, OK, you guys) have identified the problem; anyone have any better ideas on how the world can "get things done?"
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 19:15:11 [Permalink]
|
My suggestion:
Get the fuck out of our way.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/18/2002 : 19:37:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My suggestion:
Get the fuck out of our way
--let me qualify that. It's obvious the UN is nothing. I'd just as soon drop the pretences.
The US is somewhat expansionist, but very much like the Roman example we model ourselves on anyway. We may use violence to gain control of a place, but we are generally benign. We do far more good than harm on the ground. Regardless of whatever 'sinister' plot lies behind our actions, we bring alot of aid to the people in medicine and food. We build infrastructure and bring them into the global economy.
We also target genuine assholes. We're not invading Tahiti here. When was the last time we lobbed a Tomahawk at say, Holland? The past decade has seen no 'wars' yet the most military activity in history. What we have done is topple genocidal maniacs in Bosnia, protect (try at least) UN food convoys in Somalia, respond to natural disasters the world over, et al. Not really the stuff of Viking conquest.
I say this because from 1991 to 2002, I was a soldier and was involved in these operations. I have personally handed out food at UN feeding stations. I have provided security for EOD guys to remove landmines from villiages. I just missed out on freeing Afghanistan from the tyranny of the Taliban. So I'm not really inclined to fall into the big-bad-expansionist-US-out to-rule-the-world crowd. If you haven't noticed, the US is shrinking in power economically. I remember when it was 200 yen to the dollar. Now it's about even. Same for euro currency.
Also having been to all these shitholes, I can say from experience, that the US is far and away the best country on earth. Thank whatever gods you pray to that you're american. The elite of some countries doesn't compare to our welfare cases. So if we're exporting US influence, that is WAY WAY WAAAY better than anything these folks are facing now. It's hard to get upset about improving the world.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2002 : 03:17:47 [Permalink]
|
(Please remind me, what part of the US do I live in?)
First, thank you for making the world a better place. I agree on much what you say about the inadequacy of the UN.
But you seem to bee suggesting something like that we non-americans should stand back, while the US military fixes the worlds problems.
This sounds like replacing a republic/democracy with a philanthropic despot. Much of the world would probably be better at first, but then?
When Octavianus took over around 30 BC, Rome entered the golden age of peace and prosperity. Less than 100 years later it was back to corruption, tyranny and civil war.
What is my solution, then?
Not sure yet..
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 09/19/2002 : 03:59:25 [Permalink]
|
I agree that the UN is not a world government and does not have much in the way of power to enforce anything, but I have to disagree with most of the rest of the post.
The information that the US are the only ones enforcing sanctiouns against Iraq would probably come as a big suprise to the british who have been dropping bombs on iraqi civilians as inffectively as americans for a decade now. But pehaps you were already counting Britain as part of the USAian empire.
A reason why the UN is not making any prgress is because the US is so powerfull and disrespectfull of the UN and the rest of the world in genral. It is hard to take an organistaion serious that can't even gets richest member to pay its membership dues. With the US spending money on all kinds of frivoulous projects and stupid ideas but refusing to pay their Un membership dues, you kind of get the idea that they don't consider the UN relevant.
The US is blocking any kind of development that would tranfer power from a national to a super-national level in the name of protecting their souverignity. If you don't give the UN any power you don't have to wonder that it does not have any.
The UN is a good tool to create a global council and achive the goals that it is supposed to, but it can't work against the will of the US. And the way it looks now Bush is busy creating a different kind of world government.
|
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2002 : 09:51:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The information that the US are the only ones enforcing sanctiouns against Iraq would probably come as a big suprise to the british who have been dropping bombs on iraqi civilians as inffectively as americans for a decade now. But pehaps you were already counting Britain as part of the USAian empire
--Ah yes, the Robin to our Batman. Every superhero(power?) needs a side kick. I love the Brits, but do you really think that the US needs Britain to help drop bombs? Do you think that if the UK jumped on the Germany bandwagon and didn't support us, we wouldn't go right on ahead and attack? Britain is there because it is the closest thing a country can have to a 'friend' to the US. But we could certainly go it alone if we wanted, and given the frequency with which the Brits actually did any bombing (thier aid comes more as intelligence support than direct military action. The Brits have excellent spy networks in the Middle East. America doesn't) it could be argued that for all intents and purposes, the US is the only one enforcing the sanctions. Besides, that's two countries. How many others that signed the sanctions have showed up to the ball game?
quote:
A reason why the UN is not making any prgress is because the US is so powerfull and disrespectfull of the UN and the rest of the world in genral. It is hard to take an organistaion serious that can't even gets richest member to pay its membership dues
--Name an operation that the UN has gotten us into that the US didn't pay 99% of the way? The sanctions are an excellent point in case. 11 Years of military presence and reprisals that the US footed the bill for to enforce UN sanctions. When the UN pays it's bartab to the US for being it's overwhelming source of support, maybe then we should considering our membership dues.
And how is it that the US, which is enforcing the UN's sanctions disrespectful. Even propping up this lame duck is a bigger favor than they deserve. See, I call it disrespectful when you ignore UN resolutions for 11 years, inhibit and finally ban UN inspectors, violate cease fires......
quote:
you kind of get the idea that they don't consider the UN relevant.
--I think Bush pointed that out already.
quote:
If you don't give the UN any power you don't have to wonder that it does not have any.
--I disagree on this point too. The UN was given alot of power, so far backed up only by the US and UK. It's not that we haven't given power to the UN, we ARE the UN's power. But the UN itself has failed to effectively use it. It squandered whatever legitimacy it had when it imposes rules on nations that it has no intention of enforcing. Even now, new sanctions will be enforced by guess who?
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/21/2002 : 10:27:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But you seem to bee suggesting something like that we non-americans should stand back, while the US military fixes the worlds problems
--Actually, no. I don't give a rat's ass about Iraq and what happens to it after we smoke Saddam. I'd rather deal with the threat, then spend money on fixing America. Instead of wasting money educating peasants half a world away, we should spend that money on our own people. There should be not a single homeless or illiterate person in America before we drop a penny on other countries. But that's my opinion.
Reality says that we won't do that, so I'm limiting my responses to what WILL happen, as opposed to just my opinion of what should. The US will spend gobs of cash on a post-Saddam Iraq. We will build schools, mosques, bridges, etc. It's what we do. It's just my personal view that we waste too much money on it. After taking out a threat, you will have to do something to keep it from returning, but it we should still be firstly worried about improving our own country before improving others.
quote:
This sounds like replacing a republic/democracy with a philanthropic despot.
--Probably a pretty accurate difinition. Except the US doesn't do these things to serve a single man's desire for empire. We have a strong system of checks and balances and alot of elected officials that have real voting power. Our leader cannot spend more than 8 years at the helm, so we can have no Caesars.
quote:
When Octavianus took over around 30 BC, Rome entered the golden age of peace and prosperity. Less than 100 years later it was back to corruption, tyranny and civil war
--True enough. And I'd say our Senate is as corrupt as Rome's ever was. I do not argue at all that the system is imperfect and could use a major overhaul. The problem is people being evil, not the system. I've had a chance to see other systems in action. Ours still shines head and shoulders above. The problem lies in the fact that politics IS power. And power corrupts. Even if the system were ideal, we are not.
I don't see where the UN is any better of an alternative, however. They are a glass facade. When put to the test as the League of Nations was earlier, the UN has been found to be a joke. It hasn't even TRIED to enforce it's own resolutions, instead relying on Americans to do it-and suffer the economic cost, the strain of foreign relations, and the characterization of an expansionist empire.
There are alot of people who hate America for no other reason than the actions we've taken in support of the UN. So the UN laid out rules, then let the US enforce them distancing themselves from the backlash. Cowards. Useless, ineffective cowards.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 01:28:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
This sounds like replacing a republic/democracy with a philanthropic despot.
--Probably a pretty accurate difinition. Except the US doesn't do these things to serve a single man's desire for empire. We have a strong system of checks and balances and alot of elected officials that have real voting power. Our leader cannot spend more than 8 years at the helm, so we can have no Caesars.
True. I meant it (and the Rome example) as an analogy were the states are the "citizens" of the world state.
A world ruled by the US alone is no democracy. I'm not the only one on this board that would be without a vote.
Maybe a League of Democracies would be better.
(An Electoral College anyone? )
|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 02:16:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A world ruled by the US alone is no democracy. I'm not the only one on this board that would be without a vote.
Maybe a League of Democracies would be better.
(An Electoral College anyone?)
No, maybe a League of Nuclear-Capable Countries. That way they'd at least be able to enforce the laws. (no worse than the above idea, and maybe a little better.)
Plato's perfect government, one in which:
"fear is meted out to the populace in proper proportion by the wise ruler" -->Dark Mirror
p. 190-191
Seriously, a Leage of Democracies is probably the best idea so far, at least unlike the UN, which has dictatorships in it, at least this group could be more respectful of human rights. The problem: wouldn't it be like trying to herd cats? You know how changeable and indecisive these democracies can be.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 15:55:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The problem: wouldn't it be like trying to herd cats? You know how changeable and indecisive these democracies can be.
For a system that was designed to be fluid (as the USA's was), we are remarkably static. Because of our inefficiencies we do not change instantly. We do not submit our governing policies to the fads and mob thoughts of the moment. The policies that succeed are the ones that have been thought out. As a friend of mine recently pointed out to me, once of the great things about our system is that it's deliberative: we must argue and defend any desired action.
A democratic league of nation-states would have a similar strength.
-me. |
|
|
|
The SollyLama
Skeptic Friend
USA
234 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 17:06:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
A democratic league of nation-states would have a similar strength
--Problem: voting power. It can't all be 'equal' because if every petty country had the same voting power as the major countries, nothing would ever get done. Just like our government- not all states get the same voting power. If everyone was equal, that wouldn't represent how the world works very accurately. There is no reason that Swaziland should wield the same power as the US or Britain. You have to consider the contribution to the whole to dole out voting power.
This has already happened in the UN. Only the Security Council members really wield much power. But then, no one else contributes as much. So is it reallly unfair? I don't think so. I just argue that the UN is just a pretense and the same nations on the SC would do as they willed in an allience of some sort. A couple phone calls. The UN is just window dressing.
quote:
A world ruled by the US alone is no democracy. I'm not the only one on this board that would be without a vote.
--C'mon. We don't 'rule' these places. Afghanistan is free to have elections. We will not allow a return to Taliban or Fundamentalist rule. So in that regard, we do hold strings. But we'd be negligent not to do so.
But they can choose any leader beyond that. We picked the first guy. You have to start somewhere. We just walked away from the place once already and you saw what happened.
But the US is not making slaves overseas. We try (with UN 'help') to nurture these countries back into the modern world. We start with relief, we end with infrastructure and defense. They are not states of the US.
Is Kuwait? Nope. They don't even have the same type of government as we do.
We exact no tribute from these countries. We spend FAR more in aid and relief. CNN just had a clip saying we've spent $800 million on Afghanistan so far. We couldn't break even on that in centuries. Afghanistan just isn't going to pay off economically. So I am wary about assuming we 'own' these countries. We do not 'rule' them.
The same argument could have been made about Israel. They survived only through US aid. But go tell a jew that the US rules Israel. I think you may invite an argument.
Bleed for me, I've bled for you. Embrace me child, I'll see you through.
Edited by - The SollyLama on 09/24/2002 17:09:38 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 17:24:22 [Permalink]
|
RIIIIIIIGHT!!!
quote:
--C'mon. We don't 'rule' these places. Afghanistan is free to have elections.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Kilted_Warrior
Skeptic Friend
Canada
118 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2002 : 21:46:06 [Permalink]
|
The US is the world's big bully. Sure your intentions may be honorable, at least at the time, but many americans I've seen or talked to don't realise why the middle eastern and many poor nations despise them. They come with their guns and tanks and attack helos and give them food (while the US public supports it) then say "see ya later" and walk out of the country once the american populace is focused on a new fad.
The UN can work, but in a true democracy, and votes should be based on population size. If everyone were as rich as the US, they would help out more. Up here in Canada, we have our own problems. We try to help out in Bosnia, and the former Yugoslavia, but they are often forgotten about by the US, because it is not popular.
Uh oh, I'm ranting again... |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2002 : 22:44:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
...many americans I've seen or talked to don't realise why the middle eastern and many poor nations despise them....
Ah yes, we are so mean and nasty. That's why you Canadians are quaking in your boots. Going into places and handing out food with our guns and tanks and attack helos. Rebuilding their piss ant countries and then leaving. Shocking.
Got news for ya kiddo, whenever anyone in the middle east thinks of Canada (those who have even heard of it) they hate you too.
This from CNN: how the UN controls the the problems that threaten the stability of the world.
------
GENEVA, Switzerland -- A French ban on the controversial practice of "dwarf-tossing" has been upheld by the U.N. Human Rights Committee.
Manuel Wackenheim began his fight in 1995 after the French ban meant he could no longer earn a living being thrown around discotheques and nightclubs by burly men.
But on Friday, Wackenheim -- who measures 1.14 metres (3 feet 10 inches) -- lost his case when the U.N. human rights body ruled the need to protect human dignity was paramount.
In a statement, the U.N. Human Rights Committee said it was satisfied "the ban on dwarf-tossing was not abusive but necessary in order to protect public order, including considerations of human dignity."
The committee also said the ban "did not amount to prohibited discrimination."
The pastime, imported from the United States and Australia in the 1980s, consists of people throwing tiny stuntmen as far as possible, usually in a bar or discotheque
------
WMD pish posh and fiddle faddle. The UN has real problems on their hands...like keeping French dwarfs from earning a living. It only took the United Nations seven years and there is some concern that the "little people" might not let UN Dwarf Inspectors into bars, but the Secretary General states that there will be no more WMD (Wacky Midget Dare-devils).
We can all sleep in peace tonight.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
